The Somerset reporter., 1887-03-30


If there was any fault III tho valuation ~ iHc
barn il was the fault u the agents, for fhry ca
amincd FOR theuseiSes before they insured, ihai
he followed the statute IN proof Of los and That
the statue anuHlied the oiher conditions pre-
cedeut" in the policy. No written notice 10 afbi-
trate WAS given BY the company.
The verdict was for plaintiff. se53t1 HE
dofendan, may carry the dase 10 the IA" court
Verdict for plaintiff $3.50.
The jury found specially tho yaiHr II tho hay
in the barn, $50, oats, So; bafey, SO,
straw, sl67; total value, Sl5oi.01, winch was
sixteen dollars less than plaintiffs valuation IA
his proof ofloss
NcrrillS Coffin FOR plaintiff.
s. &. Strout with Danf1rthSGould f9r dcien-
dant company.
YAuysdag March 24.-Amos b. Clark, rs. Ed
WIN &. Coffin.
Case avains, the defendant Is a common carr
cr for losing the plaintiffs trunk and contents
valued at $50.
Plaintiff says that his home was in Brighton,
that he was on the l9th Of April, 1856 at the
home Of the parents Of his new married wife al
Carratunk. that on that Monday morning he
packed his trunk, locked it, tackled direction
on II, "Amos Is. CLARK, Brighton" len directions
with his wife's aunt, Mrs Chase and also with
hi. wife's mother Mrs. Rollins, to send his trunk
by defendants stage, that he, with his horse and
| buggy, started for Brighton with his wife. The
direction given by Mrs. Chase to the defendants
driver, Mr.. Luther IIowcs was to take the trunk
to Bingham, if he found Clark, the plaintiff, 10
deliver the trunk To him, II ne did not ind Clark
there, to carry the trunk through to Skowhcgan,
that he afterwards inquired Of the defendants
agent at Skowhcgan, Of the driver Howes, and
Of the defendant himself but got no information,
/ except that Iiowes told him he left the trunk on
| the pinzza Of Adams hotel at bingham, that he
i then inquired Of Adams who remembered that
such trunk left and afterwards taken, he
| did not know by whom.
| IIowes says that he met CLARK the Saturday be-
fore below Carratnnk who requested him on his
return trip, Monday, to take the trunk to Solon
/ | told him it was uncertain whether ] could take
it any further than Bingham. The travelling
was bad and | expected load Of passengers
there. He understood that would leave il at
Bingham if | could not carry il to Solon took
the trunk at Rollins's. don't remember that
any thing was said about SkOwhcgan. The
plaintiff denies meeting the driver, Saturday.
The defense c0ntended this put up job,
perhaps he Lad lost the trunk, perhaps he had
not Perhaps some Of his knsfoks had taken
ii from Adams piazza. At any rate he had
made out trumped up list ofarticlcs and values
taking cost prices for old clothes and things out
Of style.
The defendant introduced several witnesses Of
admissions Of plaintiff as to the value Of contents
Of trunk that he set the value at first at $40 and
grew to Sl5 to S2j toSjO and ended with $l2j
claimed
After the was vigorously fought out the
jury retufhea 'era'ct iof inc pialhth iotr'%.io
Now comes a curious revelation. After ihe
Vefdlct OF the jury was known, inc tfuhk tuihe
h3iesP statement Or articles and values and
whether any questions will be raised as to the
contents being tempered with on either side.
Boswell for plaintiff.
Merrill & Coffin for defendant.
Saturday ran. Charles S, Smith vs. Jo-
seph King The plaintiff is 30 years Of age
the defendant "a. Case for assault and ba ttery,
adjoining farms covering both sides of the cast
ridge road in Cornyillc Tho ulaintiG,s bousc nm
Inc west side and the defendant,s NJ, ,hc oas,
aide. some eighth of a mile mari Tbc rla;n'
tHs cattlc sirayed down south on tbe e,s, ,id,,o
road towards the dcfcnd,nt,s 90 f,r'a. a -
tree abreast of defendant's land within tho I'm
its Of the highway ,omr ten rnds from dcfonJ
ants house. The nlaintiG wen, for b;s ca,,ic ~
drive them home and met tho defendant who
was also doing the same tbinv Tho ,,,r,ios ,,o,
into a wranule which ended in two clins nm thc
back of the nlnintir's boad ,n,lI ;1,g s,,in
wounds and drawing blood. also a blow on Tho
,,ri., ,ha ti,, 10 At ;h ~ VIZ
four feet long. used sometimes os canc md
sometimes as a poad stick. The defendant saw
these blows were inflicted in self defense no
plaintiff says that after some angry talk and
discussion he turned In drive bis cn,tlc hon.
that as he turned the defendant struck him Win
club, that he fell and before he could recover
defendant struck him twice tnore ,b., M sonn
as he could recover he pulled stake ont Of tbc
fence and by that time defendant was m,Lina
tracks for home.
The defendant saws tho nlnin,ir nodo ,oIL
about the apple tree. threatened 10 cmt il down
used insultinu lnn1uaue and w,s ,or, n.n
while he. himself remained worry cain, ',,d ,fodd
to reason with the plaintiff that AFTER much talI
plaintiff took knife from his nocket. threatened
to diseInbowel the defendant, came at him side
ways, that he kept the plaintiff at bay with his
| DnuH iii thn .t,,ttH
defendants legs as if to grab or cut, that de-
PENDANT struck again, thatsplaintiff Jumped for a
stake, that the rest Of the aiTray consisted Of
words only, when plaintiff denied that he took
the knife from his pocket, but said that he had
it a little while before in presence Of MIR. Rus
sell whom he had lust met and who would be-
ms witness that he had his knife whiting a
stics, ina, he afterwards denied that he had any
khie III all, that the pIalntlli alter many violent
'iled's' went nome. beiehdants wife and
oaahghter destined That they saw none of the af
Hay, pnt they ana hear much loud and angry |
lain anu particularly the alteration about the
Ai,ic'
ne defendant counsel contended that the
Huiy VI 'he Plalhtli was improbable the plain
,in was Young ana vigorous, mat defendant
loo 1. o,uer thah ms years, was IN poor health
n"r TWO otchcnes, wore double trusses.
Inc plalntlh replied, res p5d iO2Ht'V, true |
me plalntih was young and the defendant was
oiu, out the plalhtli came out OF the ailray |
"oa1ueu ana oieedlhg, whlle the defendant was
"hhout a scratch Inc defendants counsel
cohlehaeu mar the burden OF proof was upon
me piaintlii, the plaintiffs counsel replied that
.he 91"a ocing admitted the burden was upon
the ncIchuaht 10 justify them II he could.
" efuiG' iof pialhtifi S'z.d3.
'''i'il ,oii,h ior pinlntlif'
walton Walton for defendant.
Monday 2S. Coffin VS.. Blunt. A case Of
sander which had excited considerable interest
n hig pftttft ,tttttf. q. q
(2sth). Eminent counsel, local and foreign
were engaged, negotions were entered on the
eve. ofbattle, and the case was withdrawn, each
party paying its own cost.
Merrill x Coffin with Atty General Baker,
for plif.
Walton Walton with Stewart for defense.
Mondav 2Sth. Lucy A. Corsonv Ells,ro,,t
Dunlap 81 ais. This i an ar,om ~ doh, o
bond, in bastqrdy process dated MaTch % o.
1885 The original complaint was entered thc
September term 1885 and continued to the Sep